Opinion: Providing oral care through Medicaid helps stabilize the lives of Utah's most vulnerable populations
One Utah father had multiple broken teeth and a chronic, infected abscess from an inflamed gum. He shared, 'I've been living with this pain a long, long time. I just don't have any other options.'
The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to cover mandatory services like inpatient hospital, physician or laboratory services. However, dental services are only required for high-risk groups like pregnant women and children. Oral health care is considered an 'optional service' for other adult populations.
The University of Utah School of Dentistry has been diligently addressing gaps in dental care access across the state for more than a decade. From rural dental clinics to a mobile clinic van, the School of Dentistry has practiced what it teaches, caring for the otherwise underserved.
Dental treatment reduces pain and infection, but it also gives people the confidence to smile. In some cases, it can even mean a second chance. One Utah man experienced homelessness as a youth and drug addiction into his adult years. A lack of nutrition and drug use caused his teeth to fall out, impacting his ability to find employment and stability. Last year, the School of Dentistry was able to provide him with dentures. With his new smile, he was able to obtain a secure job.
'A smile is just something that goes along with being human,' he said. 'Getting it back allowed me to be myself a lot more, to be the person I knew I was inside.'
For the past eight years, through a partnership between Utah Medicaid and the School of Dentistry, dental care has been slowly restored for Medicaid members. The relationship between a state school and state program is groundbreaking and attracting national attention as a new model for providing quality care to Medicaid members. Currently, Medicaid members undergoing treatment for substance use disorder, individuals who are blind and disabled, and elderly members who are age 65 and older have access to dental services.
On April 1, 2025, thanks to the support of the Utah Legislature and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, dental benefits expanded to include all adults enrolled in Utah Medicaid. To provide care to the growing number of eligible patients throughout the state, all dentists in Utah have been invited to become associated with the School of Dentistry. Currently, more than 300 dentists are treating Medicaid members in offices around Utah. This has greatly expanded the availability of care, particularly in Utah's rural areas. It is a win-win collaboration for oral health access.
More than 120,000 Utahns will now be able to have routine dental cleanings, treatment for dental pain and common dental services covered by Medicaid. The benefits for Medicaid members include improved oral health care, and they will reduce overall health care costs in the long run. Reduced need for emergency care, fewer days missed at work and better overall quality of living will be the result.
The American Dental Association estimates that 79% of all dental-related emergency department visits could be immediately diverted to a dental office. By investing in preventive dental care, individuals and the overall health care system can save money by reducing the need for complex treatments, hospitalizations and management of chronic conditions.
When oral health concerns are addressed and treated, general health improves, resulting in long-term cost savings. Patients with a substance use disorder gain confidence, find employment and contribute to society as productive citizens. Homelessness also decreases. Overall health care costs go down, and quality of life greatly improves. A restored smile is a restored life.
For more information, please visit the Utah Medicaid website.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Vaccine-Preventable Disease: Could the Sky Fall?
It's been a tempestuous 2025 for the nation's healthcare infrastructure. I think the worst is yet to come, given cutbacks to Medicaid eligibility and coverage and the devolving recommendations by government healthcare agencies. Concern is also arising that third-party payers (Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance) and Vaccines for Children may not cover some scientifically proven vaccines or some parts of scientifically based schedules. Vaccination rates and public trust in vaccines had been dropping since the pandemic, and only 69% of families trusted CDC vaccine recommendations in January 2025, even before recent shakeups in CDC committees. Declining postpandemic national vaccine rates now hover just above thresholds for losing herd immunity (Figure 1) also in part because of increasing vaccine exemptions (Figure 2). However, some local rates have dipped below thresholds in what I call 'vaccine deserts,' those geographic pockets where vaccine deniers comprise larger parts of the population — the measles outbreak being the poster child for this. In addition, discussions are emerging about limiting or removing school vaccine requirements or expanding exemptions. Other factors that imperil herd immunity have always reduced vaccine uptake, even in families that want to vaccinate their children: time and resource limitations for working parents, language barriers, limited or no medical care coverage, limited transportation, rural or inner-city residence, and uncovered vaccines. Some may say, 'So what?' We still have more than 90% uptake for most vaccines. Evidence suggests that even with relatively high uptake, vaccine-preventable disease still occurs in subpopulations, including vulnerable children. For example, a Boston group recently reported that, even before the drop in vaccination rates over the past 5 years, vulnerable children were more likely have more invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). So, cracks in the proverbial dam existed in populations (those with comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status) even pre-pandemic and before current cutbacks. Massachusetts IPD data (ie, Optum Clinformatics DataMart and Merative MarketScan Medicaid Multi-State Database) from a time of Medicaid expansion (January 2015 through December 2019) were analyzed by insurance type and comorbidities. As expected, children younger than 2 years and particularly those younger than 1 year had the highest IPD rates regardless of insurance status, but children with Medicaid had higher IPD rates than commercially insured children. Of concern, these differences occurred despite statewide pneumococcal conjugate vaccine vaccination rates reported previously as being fairly high (92% with three or more doses by 2 years of age). Relative IPD rates for children with Medicaid vs those with commercial insurance were higher in infants (1.3, 95% CI, 0.9-1.9) and adolescents (3.4, 95% CI, 1.5-7.1). Among children with comorbidities, the IPD rate was about four times higher in infants and 10 times higher in 6- to 10-year-olds, regardless of insurance type. The authors cite three prior studies showing lower vaccine uptake in Medicaid recipients, suggesting that, among factors affecting Medicaid patients' IPD burden, lower vaccine uptake likely has a role. It seems logical that these prepandemic, pre-cutback data foreshadow darker times ahead due to a combination of increasing postpandemic public distrust, vaccine fatigue, and cutback-era policies. Not only is vaccine confidence still dropping and Medicaid becoming more restrictive at the federal level, but states may change Medicaid coverage when more costs are reassigned to them. The bottom line is that vaccine availability and access will likely decrease, even in non-economically vulnerable children. So, all children could be exposed to increased types of circulating infectious disease — resulting in increased IPD, particularly in vulnerable children. And here we are only considering one among many vaccine-preventable diseases. As pediatric providers, can we close the anticipated vaccine gaps as vulnerable families deal with healthcare cutbacks and likely become more economically vulnerable? One way is to rededicate ourselves to getting as many children as possible vaccinated (eg, reminder texts, emails, phone calls before vaccine due dates) according to schedules recommended by organizations that are politically independent and science-driven, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It's not a time for 'business as usual.' We need to proactively confirm our belief in scientifically based vaccine schedules to the families of our patients. While I strongly believe in patient medical homes, there may be room for flexibility if vaccines become available from alternative sources that are economically helpful to families. We can hope charitable organizations, foundations, and some altruistic individuals will ramp up funding to fill the evolving voids. The answers are not simple nor are potential fixes easy. Yet, pediatric providers have always answered the call when children are in jeopardy. Let's keep as many children safe as possible.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Feds direct states to check immigration status of their Medicaid enrollees
A mother holds her daughter while she gets a vaccine at a clinic in Texas in March. Children and adults who receive health insurance through Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program will now be subject to immigration or citizenship status checks, according to a new initiative announced this week by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees Medicaid as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Photo by) This week, the Trump administration's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced an effort to check the immigration status of people who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Medicaid is the public health insurance program for people with low incomes that's jointly funded by states and the federal government. For families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance, CHIP is a public program that provides low-cost health coverage for their children. The feds will begin sending states monthly enrollment reports that identify people with Medicaid or CHIP whose immigration or citizenship status can't be confirmed through federal databases. States are then responsible for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals in those reports. States are expected to take 'appropriate actions when necessary, including adjusting coverage or enforcing non-citizen eligibility rules,' according to a CMS press release. 'We are tightening oversight of enrollment to safeguard taxpayer dollars and guarantee that these vital programs serve only those who are truly eligible under the law,' Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees CMS as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release announcing the new program. As of April, roughly 71 million adults and children nationwide have Medicaid coverage, while another 7 million children have insurance through CHIP. Immigrants under age 65 are less likely to be covered by Medicaid than U.S.-born citizens, according to an analysis from health research organization KFF. Immigrants who are in the country illegally aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid and CHIP. Only citizens and certain lawfully present immigrants — green card holders and refugees, for example — can qualify. But some states have chosen to expand Medicaid coverage for immigrants with their own funds. Twenty-three states offer pregnancy-related care regardless of citizenship or immigration status, according to KFF. Fourteen states provide coverage for children in low-income families regardless of immigration status, while seven states offer coverage to some adults regardless of status. The tax and spending package President Donald Trump last month cuts federal spending on Medicaid by more than $1 trillion, leaving states to either make up the difference with their own funds or reduce coverage. But the new law also includes restrictions on coverage for certain immigrants, including stripping eligibility from refugees and asylum-seekers. Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword
4 hours ago
Dozens of OB-GYNs fled Idaho after its abortion ban. Medicaid cuts could make access to care even worse.
More than six months after Idaho's near-total abortion ban went into effect, a small town nestled in the state's northern mountain ranges lost its labor and delivery service -- and access to such care could now be imperiled further by looming Medicaid cuts. Bonner General Health, located in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced in March 2023 that it would no longer provide obstetrical care, citing the state's "legal and political climate" as one of the factors that drove the decision. Abortions in Idaho are illegal except in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. The hospital in the city of around 10,000 people was one of three health systems in Idaho to shutter their labor and delivery services in recent years. The state has lost over a third of its OB-GYNs -- 94 of 268 -- since the ban was enacted in 2022, according to a new study in medical journal JAMA Network Open. Local health care providers and advocates ABC News spoke with said that Medicaid cuts could put additional labor and delivery services at risk of closing -- adding further pressure to Idaho's already strained maternal and reproductive health care system. More than 350,000 of the state's residents are insured by Medicaid, including those covered by the expansion plan voters approved through a ballot measure in 2018. Idaho was already seeking federal approval to institute its own work requirements after Gov. Brad Little signed a Medicaid cost bill this spring. Under the federal changes, the state could lose $3 billion in funding over the next decade and 37,000 residents could lose coverage, according to analysis by KFF. "We are living with the consequences of when you criminalize practicing medicine, you lose doctors, and I think that, coupled with these cuts at the federal level, are going to prove devastating for Idaho's already precarious rural health system," Melanie Folwell, the executive director of Idahoans United for Women and Families, the group spearheading a ballot initiative to restore abortion rights, told ABC News. After Bonner General closed its obstetric services, Kootenai Health, located an hour south, inherited its patients, which included residents across the northern tip of the state. Some women now have to drive two to three hours to get prenatal care or to deliver at Kootenai, according to one of its OB-GYNs, Dr. Brenna McCrummen. Traveling that far for care, especially in cases of complications, can endanger women and infants, McCrummen noted. "There have been patients that have delivered on the side of the road because they're not able to get to the hospital in time. There have been babies that have gone to the NICU who didn't do as well as they probably would have had they not had to travel long distances," she told ABC News. The loss of OB-GYNs in the state has hit rural areas like those in the north especially hard, the JAMA Network Open study noted. A vast majority of the remaining physicians providing obstetric care are concentrated in Idaho's seven most populated counties, leaving only 23 OB-GYNs to serve a population of over half a million across the rest of the state, according to the study. Those giving birth aren't the only ones affected by the shortage of physicians. OB-GYNs like McCrummen have packed schedules, leading to long wait times for other reproductive care. Patients seeking annual exams, for instance, often have to book five months in advance, McCrummen explained. These exams provide vital preventive health services, such as screenings for cervical and breast cancer. Across the U.S., more than 35% of counties are maternity care deserts -- areas that lack obstetrics clinicians -- according to Dr. Michael Warren, the chief medical and health officer of the March of Dimes, a nonprofit focused on maternal and infant health. Reductions to Medicaid funding could exacerbate the problem, Warren told ABC News. "The worry is that as these changes are happening in the Medicaid space, it's going to be harder, particularly for rural hospitals, to maintain those obstetric services, and if they discontinue those, we've got more maternity care deserts, and we've got a greater risk of both moms and babies having worse outcomes," Warren said. The Medicaid cuts were passed into law in July as part of President Donald Trump's massive tax and policy bill. Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, a Republican who serves as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the bill in a press release earlier this month, saying that "targeting waste, fraud and abuse in the program ensures that it stays financially viable for the populations who need it most." Crapo has also argued that the legislation's $50 billion rural hospital fund is the "largest investment in decades in rural health care." In Idaho, Medicaid covers around a third of births, according to data from March of Dimes. Even before cuts to coverage, labor and delivery units were difficult to keep open, Toni Lawson, a vice president of the Idaho Hospital Association, told ABC News. Lawson explained that such units require "special equipment" and "specially trained staff" on call, which is expensive to maintain -- especially in rural areas with lower birth volumes and where Medicaid reimburses less than cost. Additionally, she said, hospitals have had difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified OB-GYNs amidst Idaho's abortion restrictions. As a result, looming reductions to Medicaid funding could push these healthcare systems over the edge, according to Lawson. "What you'll see in Idaho, before you see hospitals close, is we'll have more closures of labor and delivery services," she said. These cuts could also worsen outcomes for the women who lose coverage, physician assistant specialist Amy Klingler explained. "If patients don't have access to insurance and they don't have access to Medicaid, sometimes they delay prenatal care, we don't catch complications early enough, and it puts the baby and the mother's lives at risk," Klingler, who works in a small mountain town in central Idaho, told ABC News. The two problems can compound -- Klingler noted that the risk of not catching complications early on is heightened when the same women also have to travel further to receive care. While she is able to provide prenatal care to her patients, the closest hospital that can deliver babies is a 60-mile drive from her clinic -- a route she says that lacks cell service for 45 miles. "So in the best circumstances, it takes planning and forethought. And then when things are serious and complicated, it's much more dangerous," Klingler said. "Complicated pregnancies in Idaho are the scary ones right now," she added. In cases when the mother's health becomes at risk, health providers say that the state's abortion ban limits the emergency care they are able to provide. A state court issued a ruling in April slightly expanding the medical exception to the ban in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, but advocates still argue the existing law constricts physicians' ability to supply adequate care. The organization Idahoans United for Women and Families is currently gathering signatures to get a measure on the ballot in 2026 to return the state to the standard of abortion access it had before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. However, Lawson said "there is no silver bullet" to solve depleted access to maternal and reproductive care. "It is going to have to be a combination of things and certainly removing barriers to recruitment is an important part of that," she said, adding that the state must also address rural hospitals' precarious financial position amid the projected loss of Medicaid funding. Breana Lipscomb, the senior manager of maternal health and rights at advocacy group the Center for Reproductive Rights, noted that all of these factors are "working in tandem" to restrict access. "It's making health care even further out of reach for people, and this is particularly concerning for Black people, for people living in rural areas, for low income folks and for people with capacity to birth," Lipscomb said. "I am really afraid of what we might see," she added.
